Substance of assignments of error, when viewed in light of counsel’s affidavit and trial court's finding sufficient to allow the amendment of petition in error to correctly reflect proper party appellant.
How later courts described this case
- Substance of assignments of error, when viewed in light of counsel’s affidavit and trial court's finding sufficient to allow the amendment of petition in error to correctly reflect proper party appellant.
- “[A] party who fails to preserve an issue for appeal by objecting in a timely manner ... has waived review of that issue.”
- "[W]here the issue of uncertainty of damages arises, the rule limiting recovery of uncertain damages applies to the fact of such damages, not their measure."
- Opala, V.C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HODGES, Justice,
dissenting in part.
In my opinion the damages awarded by the jury were excessive in two respects:
(1) The court’s failure to comply with the rule that future damages should be reduced to their present value. Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Merchant, 380 P.2d 682 (Okla.1963).
(2) The jury should have been instructed that plaintiff was required to mitigate her damages by reinvesting the balance of her IRA account, after payment of penalties and tax into a new IRA account. Smith-Horton Drilling Co. v. Brooks, 199 Okl. 63 , 182 P.2d 499 (1947).
The failure to apply the above principles of law resulted in a windfall to the plaintiff and the damage award should be reversed for a new trial.